Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Sanders supported "Black Lives Matter"? I thought he gave the protesters the stage and let them speak because he believes in their cause. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think the author is a big fan of Sanders.
Yeah, it really seems that way. Do they have no quality control? I'd think they could at least read over it and verify that it's accurate before throwing it up on their website. Hard to believe they still have a print magazine, although if it's anything like this, no wonder it going down the drain.
This is an example of one of those articles where I find myself forcing myself through until it gets to the meat of the point. And, for me at least, this happened about five paragraphs in. The notion that Sanders is the most likely to listen to a movement like BLM is probably correct. And I sympathize with the notion of saying "You don't understand how important this issue is to us, and I'm going to emphasize again and again until you agree with me on its importance." I will never truly understand the depth of frustration many black people in this country feel, but I can sympathize with the disenfranchisement and the desire to be heard. The next few paragraphs I similarly agree with. Racism is by no means gone, though the avenues and means through which it acts have become more nuanced in recent years. And I agree that BLM should be allowed to speak and, on an ideological level, should be heard even though the most publicized interactions the group has are often chaotic, disorganized, or raucous. But it's that last point which makes me disagree with much of the rest of the article. To give the mic over to BLM "without a script" would be to doom to death any hope of these people being heard. I have yet to see anyone in the BLM movement speak and carry themselves with the charisma or biting vigor of the great speakers and leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. And whether they like it or not, BLM are not political animals. You cannot play in the sandbox that is American politics without knowing the players, knowing how they play, and knowing how they get the crowd on their side. Some members or quasi-leaders of BLM might understand points 1 and 2, but I've yet to see any of them grasp number 3 and keep the movement organized enough to not trip over itself at every turn. And unless the movement is willing to wait until they can push through this issue via sheer numbers, they're going to have to learn to be politicians. Because having the louder voice isn't going to help much when the other side can pay better, play better, and talk circles around any of these protestors. That is why BLM's image and political organization and "agenda" (despite what the author writes) is so important, whether they like it or not.